Allen Johnson DQd for Alcohol

[TR]

I am absolutely amazed at the amount of posts in this thread that seem to come to the rescue of AJ. Hell, some of you actually sound like you're condoning it. I just hope I don't make the mistake of ever pulling into the gate of your local track where you compete. NHRA has done some seriously bone-headed things in their day, but in this particular case they bear absolutely no fault at all; period.

All of you doubters need to read and re-read Christopher's post above. It covers all pertinent areas of the argument to the point of nothing else needing to be said.

Sean D

I think the rule is a little too strict without any recourse such as if the machine isn't working right, that's not going to help this driver for sure, I could understand NHRA getting a little irate if he had a cup holder in his car. No racer I know would ever get in a car if they had drank that day. This whole deal stinks of high heaven and yes it is a liberal b.s. driven political correctness deal. Sorry just had to vent.

 

[clwill]

I think the rule is a little too strict without any recourse such as if the machine isn't working right

There is a clear and definitive appeal policy. He did not invoke it.

No racer I know would ever get in a car if they had drank that day.

You need to brush up on your drag racing history.

This whole deal stinks of high heaven and yes it is a liberal b.s. driven political correctness deal. Sorry just had to vent.

And you also need to go to a MADD meeting one day and then come back and talk about "liberal b.s. driven political correctness".

 

[Chi-Town Brown]

I know of no jurisdiction where one can be ticketed, detained or arrested for having blown less than a .05.

Are you kidding!!!! Anyone with a CDL blows a .040 or better and your going to jail AND lose your license for a year. Anyone with a CDL the legal limit is HALF the regular legal limit. And that applies no matter what your driving.

 

[Jenn]

I am absolutely amazed at the amount of posts in this thread that seem to come to the rescue of AJ. Hell, some of you actually sound like you're condoning it. I just hope I don't make the mistake of ever pulling into the gate of your local track where you compete. NHRA has done some seriously bone-headed things in their day, but in this particular case they bear absolutely no fault at all; period.

All of you doubters need to read and re-read Christopher's post above. It covers all pertinent areas of the argument to the point of nothing else needing to be said.

Sean D

I don't condone racing and drinking but I also don't think NHRA has a right to dictate if a person has a few drinks at dinner. I believe that is why there are 24 hours from when you sign your receipt of orders to get tested.

Allen Johnson used his discretion to drink, and used his discretion on when to go get tested. I think it's ironic that from the sounds of it, he had time to take the test and chose to take it early but if he had waited, this would be a non-issue.

Of course I haven't seen his apology or anything other than the statement from NHRA. (I didn't heed Justin's warning about the DVR).

 

[S&M]

Zero tolerance is just fine with me. Telling someone that they can't drink anything at all for a few days a year, in exchange for the privilege of racing, seems like pretty small thing to ask. When we're racing we very consciously limit ourselves to at most one beer at dinner, if anything. It's not about the rules, it's about racing with a clear head.

NHRA's rule isn't "political correctness" or "liberalism", it's about safety and insurance. Someone gets hurt, if it turns out alcohol is involved and the lawsuits would fly for decades. As for "this is America, dammit", I must've missed the part of the constitution that grants the right to endanger others by drinking and driving.

For all you conspiracy theorists, please note that the Substance Abuse Policy has two selection criteria: Random-Selection Testing and Reasonable-Suspicion Testing. The former has been discussed above. The latter states:



It may well be that NHRA had reason to believe there was an issue with Allen. They don't need any evidence or due process, they could just suspect, and require the test.

If Allen really thought this was a "Certs issue" or a couple of drinks he had 11 hours earlier, he wouldn't have been so contrite or in tears. The policy has a very clear appeal process. He chose not to discuss or invoke that. He showed the sad signs of someone who'd been caught in an unfortunate situation. I'm sorry, he's a nice guy, but he was busted. Bummer.

I do not care who the driver is. 1) Allen Johnson was a moron for drinking alcohol during the racing event. 2) He was a double moron for not waiting to take the test.
Now the main issue with the rule as I see it.

The problem with the NHRA system is that it does nothing to promote safety. A driver could come to the track very impaired any morning of the race weekend. When this driver arrives at the track on that morning, he is given notice that he has to have an alcohol test within the next 24 hours. This driver decides to wait 23 hours to have the test. During that 23 hours he could have made several passes down the track while he was impaired. By the time he takes the test the alcohol is out of his system & he passes.
This same set of events could apply to any other driver that is not picked to have a test.
Where does making things safer come into play with the rule as it is?
As I stated above, if the main concern is safety, then test all drives before they make a pass down the track.

 

[Demon]

Sadly, Dodge probably will..................

I doubt that!!

 

[.]

Are you kidding!!!! Anyone with a CDL blows a .040 or better and your going to jail AND lose your license for a year. Anyone with a CDL the legal limit is HALF the regular legal limit. And that applies no matter what your driving.

It only applies when you're driving a vehicle that requires a CDL. If you're in a normal passenger vehicle then the legal limit is the normal .08%

 

[Randy]

For me I have a rule that applies to my driver and crew. If you can't go a race weekend without a drink (includes a beer) then obviously your drinking is more important to you than our racing. I am responsible for the safety of our driver and equipment. I don't want any leftover effects of a Friday or Saturday night "binge" in my pit. If we have a problem (crash, injury, crew brain fade, etc) then I can say everyone was as sharp as they could be and did their best rather than wondering in the back of my mind if someone had a few too many some time during the race weekend.

PS, My brother died at age 46 as a drunk. I have no tolerance at all. Stay home if you can't go to the event without a drink.

RG

 

[clwill]

Jenn, Chris, and others: it's not clear that the "Reasonable-Suspicion" testing includes the "within 24 hours" optional period. That may well be what got Allen, and would solve the "clearly impaired" situation.

 

[glofria]

Forget all this, what I really want to know is what's John Force's opinion.

Did he get interviewed?

 

[Tumbleweed]

WOW, Gino Ofria........WOW What's up sir? For those of you who don't know, Gino & I have known each other since pre K.........A LONG TIME

 

[JB3]

It only applies when you're driving a vehicle that requires a CDL. If you're in a normal passenger vehicle then the legal limit is the normal .08%

WRONG !! If you hold a CDL license, the rules attached to that license apply whether you are driving the rig or your bicycle.

 

[Jenn]

It only applies when you're driving a vehicle that requires a CDL. If you're in a normal passenger vehicle then the legal limit is the normal .08%

Nope, it doesn't matter what you are driving in NM. It's the "Professional Standard of Conduct". If you hold a CDL you are held to a higher standard for driving period.

 

[.]

WRONG !! If you hold a CDL license, the rules attached to that license apply whether you are driving the rig or your bicycle.

Nope, it doesn't matter what you are driving in NM. It's the "Professional Standard of Conduct". If you hold a CDL you are held to a higher standard for driving period.

Wrong.
Commercial Driver's License Program (CDL/CDLIS) - Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

BAC Standards:

The FMCSA has established 0.04% as the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level at or above which a CDL commercial motor vehicle operator who is required to have a CDL is deemed to be driving under the influence of alcohol and subject to the disqualification sanctions in the Federal regulations. Most States have established a BAC level of .08% as the level at or above which a person operating a non-commercial motor vehicle is deemed to be driving under the influence of alochol.

You are not required to have a CDL to drive a non-CDL vehicle. The .04% applies only when you're driving a vehicle which requires you to have a CDL to operate. I know, I have a Class A with T (doubles/triples) endorsement. I've asked 2 or 3 different people at Oregon DMV offices, an acquaintance that's an Oregon State Patrol officer, an acquaintance that's Portland cop, a Cedar Rapids, IA cop, a Linn County, Iowa deputy and an Iowa State Patrol officer. All told me the exact same thing.


Edit- To confirm, once again, I just got off the phone with the Cedar Rapids office of the Iowa State Patrol and they confirmed that I'm correct. The lower .04% only applies when you're driving a vehicle that requires a CDL. If you're driving a normal vehicle that does not require a CDL the limit is .08%. I don't drink, but this is one thing I made absolutely sure of when I got my CDL several years ago. Whoever is telling you anything differently than what I described above is flat wrong. Who wants to wager?

 

[racer83]

Zero tolerance is just fine with me. Telling someone that they can't drink anything at all for a few days a year, in exchange for the privilege of racing, seems like pretty small thing to ask. When we're racing we very consciously limit ourselves to at most one beer at dinner, if anything. It's not about the rules, it's about racing with a clear head.

NHRA's rule isn't "political correctness" or "liberalism", it's about safety and insurance. Someone gets hurt, if it turns out alcohol is involved and the lawsuits would fly for decades. As for "this is America, dammit", I must've missed the part of the constitution that grants the right to endanger others by drinking and driving.

For all you conspiracy theorists, please note that the Substance Abuse Policy has two selection criteria: Random-Selection Testing and Reasonable-Suspicion Testing. The former has been discussed above. The latter states:



It may well be that NHRA had reason to believe there was an issue with Allen. They don't need any evidence or due process, they could just suspect, and require the test.

If Allen really thought this was a "Certs issue" or a couple of drinks he had 11 hours earlier, he wouldn't have been so contrite or in tears. The policy has a very clear appeal process. He chose not to discuss or invoke that. He showed the sad signs of someone who'd been caught in an unfortunate situation. I'm sorry, he's a nice guy, but he was busted. Bummer.

Christopher you and I have disagreed before but this time we couldn't be more on the same page.

Its too bad that AJ got "caught" (and I in no way mean that AJ has any problem) but the system has to be the way it is. Nice guy, small mistake, big result.


Jenn your comment --> Don't get it twisted, I'm all for zero tolerance policy. He got tossed from the event after admitted it and I hope he doesn't get a long term suspension from the race. NHRA cannot dictate what you do on your own time when you are off the property.

They can and they do. If they really wanted they would just pull the competition licence for failure to following their Zero Tolerance Policy - its a rule infraction like all the others. Other forms of motorsport and most professional sport have similar policies. If you do anything on your own time or off the property that could affect what happens when you are "their" time/property then YOU are responsible not them.

TK

 

[paoldtimer]

In Pennsylvania..."If a CDL licensed driver is pulled over under suspicion for DUI the legal limit for their BAC is a .08, still the same as other drivers. However, if they are pulled over while operating a commercial vehicle the legal BAC level is significantly lower at .04. The penalty for a conviction on DUI becomes the most problematic aspect for any CDL driver. It does not matter if the driver was operating their personal vehicle or a commercial vehicle, if a CDL driver is convicted of a DUI then their CDL license will be suspended for one year, with no chance of obtaining an Occupational Limited License. If the CDL driver is convicted for a second DUI then there will be a lifetime suspension of their license effectively ending their career as a professional driver."

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

. NHRA cannot dictate what you do on your own time when you are off the property. .

Sure they do, remember the "testing rule"???

 

[MoparBilly]

Does this mean less racers will be showing up for first round wearing their "MY DRINKING TEAM HAS A RACING PROBLEM" T-Shirts??????

It's a tough deal, I feel bad for AJ. But, as the only CDL driver at my company...(meaning ALL the randoms are ME!) I understand the need to hold people accountable.

 

[JB3]

In Pennsylvania..."If a CDL licensed driver is pulled over under suspicion for DUI the legal limit for their BAC is a .08, still the same as other drivers. However, if they are pulled over while operating a commercial vehicle the legal BAC level is significantly lower at .04. The penalty for a conviction on DUI becomes the most problematic aspect for any CDL driver. It does not matter if the driver was operating their personal vehicle or a commercial vehicle, if a CDL driver is convicted of a DUI then their CDL license will be suspended for one year, with no chance of obtaining an Occupational Limited License. If the CDL driver is convicted for a second DUI then there will be a lifetime suspension of their license effectively ending their career as a professional driver."

Thanks Cheryl !!

Brent, I was incorrect in my original response. However, I knew there were ramifications towards the CDL even if you were driving your weekly grocery getter. Infractions apply to all licenses you hold, they just get tighter when driving the vehicle that requires a CDL.

Thanks for setting the record straight.

 

[Jim]

Zero Tolerance??

These policies (whether they're implemented to prevent bullying, drinking, or peanuts in the school cafetarias) always sound great 'til they're actually implemented. Take any rational judgement out of the "punishment" equation and you have a "mindless" policy.

Clearly, the policy was implemented to cover (persistent) drugs in the system. If AJ had delayed testing (for alcohol) until AFTER the race (or even after his breafast) he would have blown "clean". Basic knowledge of the system and the science would have obviated any value of the policy.
BTW: I don't know why a breath-test would be considered the "gold standard" for alcohol. Under the circumstances, AJ should have insisted on a blood alcohol test to verify breath findings.


About the only take-away from this experience (for ALL the other racers) "drag your feet" the next time you're drawn to take the test.
Either that or Racers will insist a lawyer and a medical professional be present during ALL testing.

PS: I'm more anti-alcohol (in cars or the workplace) than most. Myself and my family were severely impacted by a no-good repeat drunk driver a number of years ago (and the mindless "system" at the time allowed him to go free and skip).